PODCAST: ¿Qué cambia la orden ejecutiva de Biden en la frontera sur y el asilo?

posted in: Politics | 0

El 4 de junio el presidente Joe Biden anunció una orden ejecutiva que suspende el procesamiento de solicitudes de asilo entre los puntos de entrada oficiales a lo largo de la frontera sur, y autoriza a los funcionarios de inmigración a deportar inmigrantes sin procesar sus solicitudes de asilo.

Foto Oficial de la Casa Blanca por Adam Schultz

El presidente Joe Biden camina con agentes de la Patrulla Fronteriza de EE.UU. a lo largo de un tramo de la frontera entre EE.UU. y México, el domingo 8 de enero de 2023, en El Paso.

El 4 de junio el presidente Joe Biden anunció una orden ejecutiva que inicia cuando se cumplen siete días seguidos en los que la Patrulla Fronteriza de Estados Unidos aprehende a más de 2.500 personas en las fronteras terrestres y costeras del sur del país. Esto se suspenderá 14 días después de que el secretario de seguridad nacional de los Estados Unidos, Alejandro Mayorkas, determine que el promedio de siete días calendario consecutivos ha sido menor a 1.500 encuentros.

La nueva orden, bajo el título en español “Una proclamación sobre la seguridad de la frontera” entró en efecto a las 12:01 de la mañana del 5 junio.

Algo que los defensores de inmigrantes han criticado es que la orden ejecutiva transforma el sistema de asilo de forma arbitraria al negar la posibilidad a cualquiera que cruce la frontera mientras el promedio diario de cruces supere los 2.500 encuentros.

Además, los migrantes que cruzan sin autorización, salvo en circunstancias excepcionales como ser un menor no acompañados o víctimas de una forma grave de trata, no serían elegibles para asilo y estarían sujetos a una expulsión acelerada.

En 2018 la administración Trump quiso imponer restricciones similares, pero los grupos de inmigración y de derechos civiles pronto demandaron, llamándola “asylum ban” (prohibición de asilo). 

La Unión Americana de Libertades Civiles (ACLU por sus siglas en inglés), que bloqueó la prohibición de asilo de Trump en cuestión de días, ya anunció que presentará una demanda para revocar esta nueva regulación de Biden.

La administración Biden hizo uso de la autoridad de la Sección 212(f) y 215(a) de la Ley de Inmigración y Nacionalidad (INA por sus siglas en inglés), que otorga al presidente un amplio margen de maniobra. 

Desde principios de este año, varios medios de comunicación habían estado reportando sobre esta acción, y en un episodio anterior se abordó el tema de los poderes del presidente para cerrar funciones clave de la frontera

Así que para desmenuzar las distintas partes de esta acción, invitamos a César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández abogado especializado en inmigración de la Universidad Estatal de Ohio.

Más detalles en nuestra conversación a continuación.

Ciudad Sin Límites, el proyecto en español de City Limits, y El Diario de Nueva York se han unido para crear el pódcast “El Diario Sin Límites” para hablar sobre latinos y política. Para no perderse ningún episodio de nuestro pódcast “El Diario Sin Límites” síguenos en Spotify, Soundcloud, Apple Pódcast y Stitcher. Todos los episodios están allí. ¡Suscríbete!

Trump chases Latino vote as support for Biden slips among young Hispanic voters

posted in: News | 0

Former President Donald Trump has announced the formation of a new campaign coalition aimed at attracting Latino voters disillusioned with the Democratic party and the policies of the Biden Administration.

In announcing “Latino Americans for Trump,” the 45th president said he’s looking to build on past successes among the largest segment of non-white voters.

“In 2020, we got more votes from Hispanic Americans than any Republican in more than 50 years, and we won the Texas border counties that no Republican candidate had won in more than a century! In 2024, we’re going to win an even larger share of the Hispanic American vote, setting all-time records for Republicans up and down the ballot,” Trump said.

The formation of Trump’s newest coalition comes as polling suggests that voters who identify as Latino aren’t feeling nearly as enthusiastic about supporting President Joe Biden for a second term as they did during his first election, and as Biden works to shore up support among the minority voting blocks that propelled him into office in 2020.

A New York Times/Siena poll released in mid-May showed support for Biden slipping among younger Hispanic and Black voters over his continued support of Israel’s war efforts in Gaza.

Trump’s campaign, in announcing the new coalition, said that Latino families are suffering under rising inflation and higher interest rates. The campaign said that U.S. Hispanic-identifying voters prefer immigration policies that support legal immigration and that “consequently, they disapprove of how millions have been allowed to cross the border illegally. Latino voters ‘overwhelmingly’ trust President Trump over Biden on his approach to address border security and immigration.”

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, of Florida, and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, of Texas, both of whom ran against Trump in the 2016 Republican Primary, both endorsed the coalition.

“Growing up in a Cuban household taught me the importance of family, faith and the value of honest work. Under President Trump, Hispanics saw the lowest rate of unemployment in history, their small businesses boomed, prices were low, and jobs were abundant. Joe Biden has all but reversed that completely, which is why America needs to elect President Trump come November,” Cruz said in a statement shared by Trump’s campaign.

Biden’s campaign preempted Trump’s announcement with a call for Latino voters to ignore his outreach attempts and remember what life was like under a Trump presidency.

Related Articles

National Politics |


For Trump, N.D. Gov Doug Burgum emerges as a safe option, and a wild card

National Politics |


Wins at the ballot box for abortion rights still mean court battles for access

National Politics |


‘So much death’: Lawmakers weigh stricter speed limits, safer roads for pedestrians

National Politics |


Election monitors nervously practice for the ‘big dance in November’

National Politics |


Alito’s flag controversy foreshadows contentious Supreme Court rulings

“The truth is, Donald Trump failed Latinos and their families, while President Biden has actually delivered real results like lowering health care costs, creating good-paying jobs – resulting in the lowest Latino unemployment ever – and making historic investments leading to Latino small businesses opening at the fastest rate in a decade,” Biden-Harris 2024 Campaign Manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez said in a statement.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Hispanic or Latino Unemployment Rate fell to 3.9% in September of 2019, the third year of Trump’s presidency. The unemployment rate for that segment of the population jumped to 18.9% in April of 2020 at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In September of 2022, during the second year of Biden’s presidency, the Latino unemployment rate had fallen to 3.8%, “the lowest rate since 1973,” according to BLS. It currently stands at 5%, just higher than the national average of 4%.

This all comes as Trump held an outdoor rally Sunday in Las Vegas, where the heat and voters were strong.

One year after Trump classified documents indictment, defense challenge of special counsel takes center stage

posted in: Politics | 0

It’s been a year since former President Donald Trump was indicted on charges of mishandling classified U.S. government documents and attempting to block its efforts to retrieve them.

But U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has postponed a trial she had set for May 20 indefinitely, citing a broad spectrum of legal issues to be resolved. In three weeks, one of the most prominent of those will focus on the constitutional authority of the government’s top prosecutor in the case, Special Counsel Jack Smith, to investigate and bring charges against Trump.

On June 21, in Cannon’s Fort Pierce federal courtroom, an unusual daylong series of legal arguments will unfold over Smith’s appointment. They are arguments, legal analysts say, that would rarely see the light of day in a trial court; they are usually reserved for the appellate courts.

Nonetheless, speakers representing Trump and the government won’t be the only ones appearing before Cannon.

The judge has allotted 90 minutes for third-party lawyers representing nonprofit legal groups led and supported by past U.S. attorneys general, ex-elected officials including governors, and prominent law professors. Two groups will support Trump’s position that Smith has been investigating Trump as an unauthorized prosecutor. A third will argue U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland had the authority to name Smith to lead the classified documents probe.

The groups include the nonprofit conservative Landmark Legal Foundation of Kansas City, Missouri, which is being led in this instance by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, and Citizens United, another conservative group based in Washington that gained prominence for winning the U.S. Supreme Court decision that political spending is a form of protected free speech under the First Amendment.

The Landmark foundation is expected to argue that Smith is not a U.S. government officer but an “employee” whose appointment fails to comport with the separation of powers under the Constitution.

“The primary purpose of the Special Counsel regulations which were modeled on the Independent Counsel statute, was to avoid conflicts of interest when the executive branch investigates itself,” the foundation wrote the court. “But here, Attorney General Garland appointed Mr. Smith not to investigate someone connected to the United States Department of Justice, the President, or the Biden Administration — as was the case with Hunter Biden — but to investigate the Biden Administration’s leading political opponent.”

The naming of Smith, who was not with the government at the time he became special counsel, violated the appointments clause of the Constitution, the Meese group argues in its brief.

“Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos,” the group argues.

Attorney Gene Schaerr, a former clerk to the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia who represents Citizens, will argue that Smith required Senate confirmation to serve as special counsel.

The government is supported by a group of prominent law professors, including Harvard University’s Laurence H. Tribe, and former elected officials, including two former Northeast governors — Christine Whitman, of New Jersey, and William Weld, of Massachusetts, as well as a group known as “State Democracy Defenders Action.” Matthew Seligman, a Washington-based constitutional lawyer and fellow at Stanford Law School who clerked at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, will argue their position.

“Defendant Donald J. Trump and his amici contend that the appointment of Special Counsel John ‘Jack’ Smith is unlawful,” Seligman wrote in his brief to the court. “That contention is demonstrably incorrect. The Appointments Clause of the Constitution authorizes Congress to vest the power to appoint ‘inferior officers’ in the Attorney General as the head of the Department of Justice. As the Supreme Court has confirmed, a special prosecutor empowered to investigate and prosecute a particular criminal matter is such an inferior officer.”

None of the groups has had any previous involvement in the Trump case.

“The Court anticipates starting with argument from counsel for the parties; proceeding to hear argument from amici and rebuttal from the parties as necessary; and then accommodating any presentation of evidence, if deemed necessary by the Court,” Judge Cannon wrote in a recent order scheduling the hearing at the Alto Lee Adams Sr. U.S. Courthouse in Fort Pierce.

Outsized discretion?

Legal critics assert the exercise of allowing outside “friends of the court” to argue the issue is not only rare, but yet another act of delay by the judge to help Trump avoid a trial before the presidential election in November.

“All judges have the inherent power to control their dockets and set their calendars,” said Robert Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University in Davie. “This principle has been reconfirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court many times. What is happening in this case — which is highly unusual, even unprecedented — is that Judge Cannon has decided to ‘slow walk’ the case to make sure that the trial cannot possibly start until after the presidential election, so as to help Donald Trump, the man who put her into office.

“This is a complete perversion of justice, but, unfortunately, the Eleventh Circuit has decided to let her proceed.”

Amicus briefs, he added, “are the province of appellate courts.“

Revised timetable of Trump hearings in Florida, New York

Cannon, citing new motions brought by the prosecution and defense, has again revised the case’s hearing schedule.

Here is a snapshot of what June and July will look like, according to court files and open court announcements. This list does not include filing deadlines for motions.

June 21: In Fort Pierce, a non-evidentiary hearing will be held before Judge Aileen Cannon on a defense motion to dismiss the indictment based on alleged unauthorized appointment and funding of special counsel. Arguments will start from lawyers for both sides. Then third parties will address the court, followed by rebuttals from the government and defense and if necessary, the court will hear any presentation of evidence.

June 24: Also in Fort Pierce, the Court will hear argument on the following:

— Morning: Trump’s motion to dismiss the indictment based on the purported unlawful appointment and funding of Smith as special counsel.— Afternoon: Special counsel’s motion to modify Trump’s conditions of release over the former president’s public remarks alleging the FBI posed a threat to him during its search for classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

June 25: Arguments on Trump’s motion related to the FBI’s Mar-A-Lago search and an alleged unlawful piercing of attorney-client privilege. Argument will focus primarily on the privilege / work product issues raised in the motion, which will be heard in sealed session to protect potentially privileged information and grand jury material.

July 11:  In New York, Trump is to be sentenced by Acting New York State Supreme Court Justice Judge Juan Merchan after a jury convicted the former president on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

July 22: In the documents case, a morning status conference and a closed afternoon hearing regarding classified materials.

Unscheduled: Date for the start of the documents trial.

Why Robert F. Kennedy’s Jr.’s current presidential polling numbers might not hold up into November

posted in: News | 0

By LINLEY SANDERS (Associated Press)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has reached 15% or more in three approved national polls. One more, and he will have met one of CNN’s benchmarks to qualify for the debate June 27 with Democratic President Joe Biden and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.

But Kennedy cannot count on maintaining his current level of support as the November election nears.

It is pretty common for third-party candidates to look like they have polling momentum in the months before an election, only to come up far short at the ballot box, according to an Associated Press analysis of Gallup data going back to 1980.

That is not a sign that the polls about Kennedy are wrong right now. They just are not predictors of what will happen in the general election.

Studies have shown that people are bad at predicting their future behavior, and voting is months away. And in a year with two highly unpopular candidates in a rematch from 2020, voters may also use their early support for a third-party candidate to express their frustration with the major party choices. In the end, voters may support the candidate for whom they feel their vote can make a difference or they may decide not to vote at all.

AMERICANS WANT A THIRD PARTY, IN THEORY

The concept of a third party has been popular for a long time.

A poll conducted by Gallup in 1999 found two-thirds of U.S. adults said they favored a third political party that would run candidates for president, Congress and state offices against Republicans and Democrats. (The AP analysis used Gallup data, when available, because Gallup has a long history of high-quality polling in the United States.)

About 6 in 10 U.S. adults have said in Gallup polling since 2013 that the Republican and Democratic parties do “such a poor job representing the American people” that a third major party is needed. In the latest Gallup polling, much of that enthusiasm is carried by independents: 75% say a third party is needed. About 6 in 10 Republicans and slightly fewer than half of Democrats (46%) say an alternative is necessary.

Marjorie Hershey, a professor emeritus in the political science department at Indiana University, said Americans generally like the idea of a third party until specifics emerge, such as that party’s policies and nominees.

“It’s a symbolic notion. Do I want more choices? Well, sure. Everybody always wants more choices, more ice cream choices, more fast-food choices,” Hershey said. “But if you start to get down to brass tacks and you talk about, so would it be tacos or burgers, then that’s an entirely different choice, right?”

THIRD-PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES RARELY GET A SUBSTANTIAL SHARE OF THE VOTE

That hypothetical support for third-party candidates often breaks down quickly.

The AP analysis looked at polling for every independent and minor party presidential candidate who received at least 3% of the popular vote nationally going back to the 1980 election.

Related Articles

National Politics |


For Trump, N.D. Gov Doug Burgum emerges as a safe option, and a wild card

National Politics |


Wins at the ballot box for abortion rights still mean court battles for access

National Politics |


‘So much death’: Lawmakers weigh stricter speed limits, safer roads for pedestrians

National Politics |


Election monitors nervously practice for the ‘big dance in November’

National Politics |


Alito’s flag controversy foreshadows contentious Supreme Court rulings

In multiple elections, including the 1980, 1992, and 2016 presidential races, third-party candidates hit early polling numbers that were much higher than their ultimate vote share. For instance, in polls conducted in May and June 1980, between 21% and 24% of registered voters said they would like to see independent candidate John Anderson, a veteran Republican congressman from Illinois, win when he ran for president against Republican Ronald Reagan and Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter. Anderson went on to earn 7% of the popular vote.

Part of the problem is that early polls often look quite different from the actual general election vote.

Voters “don’t know what’s going to happen between now and the election,” said Jeffrey Jones, a senior editor at Gallup. “Things are going to come up in the campaign that could change the way they think.”

Decades after Anderson, polls conducted during the 2016 presidential campaign put support for Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, a former New Mexico governor, at between 5% and 12% in polls of registered voters conducted from May to July. That led some people to predict that he could do better than any third-party candidate in decades. Johnson won about 3% of the vote in that election.

Johnson told the AP that he believes his name should have been included in more polls, though he was in surveys used to determine eligibility for debates.

He also contends that independent candidates struggle to match major party candidates in fundraising.

“It’s money, first and foremost. People don’t donate if they don’t think that you have a possibility of winning,” Johnson said. “I’m not excluding myself from that same equation. Look, am I going to give money to somebody that I know is going to lose? I’d rather go on a vacation in Kauai,” Johnson said in an interview while driving with his family on a trip in Hawaii.

KENNEDY’S SUPPORT MAY DROP OFF AS THE ELECTION NEARS

The American electoral system makes it hard for third parties to thrive. Still, it is possible to have a significant impact without coming close to winning.

Billionaire businessman Ross Perot is among the most successful modern-day examples. He won 19% of the vote when he ran for president in 1992. But that was substantially lower than his support in earlier polling. In polls conducted from May to July of that year, between 30% and 39% of registered voters said they would vote for Perot.

There are already reasons to believe that at least some of Kennedy’s polling support may be a mirage. (The Kennedy campaign did not respond to a request for comment.)

A CNN poll conducted last summer when he was running for the Democratic nomination found that 2 in 10 Democrats who would consider supporting him said that their support was related to the Kennedy name or his family connections. An additional 17% said they did not know enough about him and wanted to learn more, while only 12% said it was because of support for his views and policies.

“A variable that is so different from all these other people is the Kennedy name,” said Barbara Perry, an expert in presidential studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. “There’s a lot of emotion around him that I would say was not there in the Anderson, Perot, (Ralph) Nader and Johnson cases.”

There also is some evidence that Americans are using support for Kennedy to express frustration with Biden and Trump.

Hershey notes that for many people, presidential elections can feel abstract until a few weeks before it happens, so it is good to take early poll numbers with a grain of salt.

Such polls “don’t necessarily reflect actual political issues,” Hershey said. “They reflect general views about life.”